Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This is a case between Mr Thomas Richmond of Colliston and Strenton and his curators, and the common agent in the locality of Orwell, and the minister of Orwell. The question is whether the teinds of portions belonging to Mr Richmond of the divided commonties of Cuthill Muir and Beng Muir are to be held as having been included in a valuation obtained in 1630. The subjects contained in Mr Richmond's titles to his lands are described as “all and whole the lands of Colliston, or Colliston and Strenton, with houses, biggings, yards, parts, pendicles, and pertinents of the same whatsoever, lying within the barony of Cuthill — Gourdie, and sheriffdom of Perth and the titles of his authors since 1633 are in the same terms. The commonties were divided, and the portions in question allocated to the lands of Colliston and Strenton in 1774. In these circumstances, Mr Richmond maintains that the teinds effeiring to the right of commonty in the undivided commons, then belonging to the lands of Colliston and Strenton, must be held to have been included in the valuation, and he put in a minute surrendering the said teinds of the said lands and others, including the said part of Cuthill Muir, and protested that he and his successors shall not be liable for any further augmentation, or for any expenses in the present or any future process of locality in respect of the said lands and others. Answers to this minute were put in by the common agent and the minister, in which they denied that the valuations therein specified comprehend the teinds of the portion of the commonty of Cuthill Muir which belongs to Mr Richmond; and they pleaded that that being so, he is not entitled to surrender these teinds, or any part thereof, on the footing that they were included in the valuation. Quoad the teinds of the lands of Strenton and Colliston, they maintained that the minute of surrender should receive effect. The Lord Ordinary (Barcaple) held that Mr Richmond had failed to show that the teinds of the parts of the divided commonties of Cuthill Muir and Beng Muir belonging to him were valued by the valuation founded on, and therefore sustained the objection stated by the common agent and minister to the minute of surrender by Mr Richmond, in so far as it includes the teinds of the said parts of said commonties. Mr Richmond reclaimed. The Court to-day held that the record had been incompetently made up upon the minute of surrender. A minute of surrender should be simple and unconditional. It should be in the terms of the valuation founded on; whereas that in the present case involves the proposition, which is open to dispute, that the teinds of the lands in question were included in the valuation of 1630. That question ought to be raised in the form of objections to the interim scheme of locality, in which case it would be seen what other heritors are localled upon, and what they got under the decree of division. The Court recalled the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and appointed the minute to be withdrawn.